Orion Optics v Skywatcher!

[philsail1]

Comparison Review of Skywatcher 200mm x 1000mm (f5) Newtonian Reflector and Orion Optics (UK) 200mm x 900mm (f4.5) Newtonian Reflector Telescope with upgraded mirrors (from ¼ wave to 1/8^th PV wave) .

Comparison carried out on night of Friday 26^th September 2008 between the times 9.45pm and 12.50am.

Weather mild, clear and dry, with a slight low level haze. “Seeing” was a bit misty in places, with parts of the “Milky Way” obscured. Also my viewing position (back yard) is surrounded by houses – which give off heat, as do the paving flagstoned yard.

Skywatcher was mounted on its HEQ5 motorised tripod.

Orion was on a Celestron CG5 motorised mount.

Collimation checked on both scopes before use, using a Cheshire Collimator. Both scopes “spot on.” (The Orion did not need adjusting at all).

Eyepieces used were:- 2x 25mm GSO Plossl. 2x10mm Skywatcher “Super” Plossls.

Antares 10mm Plossl.

10mm Vixen NPL

5mm Vixen NLV

Celestron 40mm “E-Lux”

Tal 26mm Super Plossl

Tal 6.3mm Super Plossl

Celestron 25mm SMA

25mm Kelner

10mm Kelner

2” Meade Series 4000 32mm

2” Celestron “E-Lux” 40mm

Celestron 2x “Ultima Barlow.

A pair of Antares Binoviewers fitted with two 25mm GSO

Plossls and a Skywatcher 2x Barlow.

Targets viewed were:- Double Star Mizar and Alcor in Ursa Major.

M13 Globular Cluster in Hercules.

M57 Ring Nebula in Lyra.

Double Star system (near star Vega) in Lyra

M31 Galaxy in Andromeda

I would have liked to have compared both scopes on the Moon and planets, but the Moon did not become visible from my observing position until after 3.30am, and Jupiter was just too low down to see (13 degrees above Horizon). I’ll catch the Moon and planets another time.

On all targets I mainly stuck to using the two 25mm GSO Plossls and the two “Super” 10mm Skywatcher (all four were identical eyepieces that came with the “Antares” Binoviewers). This made comparing targets easy, as all I had to do was walk over to each telescope and look. It was a bonus that each scope was motor driven. (Incidentally, I had fitted the Celestron CG5 mount with two add on Celestron motors and these drove the mount very well indeed – very, very quiet too!).

Rather than going through the above targets individually, and commenting on the results of all the different eyepieces used in each scope, I will give a general comment, and then mention any noticeable differences in the views through each scope.

Both scopes showed all the above targets very nicely despite “seeing” conditions not being ideal. The view in the Skywatcher was a “tad” darker and field of view very slightly smaller. However, the differences in the brightness of the views on all targets was very, very small indeed, with the Orion giving the brighter views. The fields of view were again ever so slightly wider on the Orion scope. The Orion gave a slightly smaller magnification with its shorter focal length – typically 36x power when using the 25mm GSO Plossl, against a magnification of 40x using same eyepiece on the Skywatcher. When the 10mm Skywatcher eyepieces were used, the Orion scope gave a magnification of 90x, and the Skywatcher gave 100x.

The “Binoviewers” gave very nice (but very dark!) views of all targets using averted vision. Again, both scopes were almost identical in the “brightness” comparison.

The only time I could detect a definite difference in brightness, was when I used the 5mm Vixen NLV, and the 6.3mm Tal Super Plossl eyepieces. On the “dimmer” targets such as M13, M57 and M31 I found the both eyepieces would only just reveal (using averted vision) the above targets, with the 6.3mm TAL eyepiece being particularly difficult to achieve focus at all on the Skywatcher. The same eyepieces on the Orion, did focus a little easier, and showed all targets – but disappointingly dim of course.

The Orion scope coped with the “cheap” 10mm Skywatcher eyepieces very well, despite its short focal length (I have heard that scopes with short focal lengths tend to be less “forgiving” with the cheaper eyepieces).

The Skywatcher did not cope with the 5mm Vixen, and the 6.3mm TAL.

The TAL 26mm Super Plossl (used in conjunction with the Celestron Ultima 2x Barlow) gave very nice views on all targets.

When using the 2” Meade and Celestron “wide field” and extremely low powered eyepieces (22.5x using the 40mm on the Orion), I could not help noticing that although the Orion scope gave the brighter views (by only a “tad” though), the stars toward the outer edges of the field of view did appear somewhat distorted. The Skywatcher appeared to show a slightly narrower field of view, but the stars near the edge were less distorted.

Overall Impressions of both scopes when viewing the above targets.

Both scopes performed very satisfactory on all targets for the size of their main mirrors (8”). All targets (except the stars in Ursa Major) appeared as quite dim greyish objects. M13 was quite pleasing when using averted vision – I could make out individual stars on its outer edges. If “seeing” conditions had been better, I’m sure the views would have been a lot more stunning.

The Skywatcher seemed to give very slightly more “contrast” to the views. The background to the targets I looked at seemed to be ever so slightly darker. Whether this was due to the fact that I had “flocked” the Skywatcher tube is not known.

I found the Orion Scope easier to maneuver (it is only 7kgs (15lbs), against the 8.7kgs (19lbs) of the Skywatcher.

The “Moonlite” Crayford focuser I had fitted as an extra on the Skywatcher proved to be far better than the Crayford fitted as standard to the Orion scope. I found the Orion’s eyepiece single screw lock, did not lock the eyepieces as easy or reassuringly as the Moonlight’s compression ring locking mechanism. Also the screw on the Orion scope was small and difficult to grip. I was constantly trying to tighten the screw (as I was worrying that I hadn’t tightened it enough, and an eyepiece might fall out). The Orion’s focuser worked almost as smoothly as the Moonlight when in use, and achieved an easy accurate focus on all occasions.

I personally found using the 9x50 “right angled” finder scope on the Orion, easier to use than the straight through finder on the Skywatcher. I think this is a matter of personal opinion though!

The biggest “disappointment” for me when comparing the performance of both scopes, was the fact that the Orion scope, despite its upgraded mirror finishing process, did not give noticeably brighter views. I thought I was in for a delightful (and BIG!) difference in the brightness of views over the Skywatcher scope. I must admit, that I was very disappointed. (Especially as I had asked about this aspect when I initially enquired about buying the scope, and had been told by “Barry” that I would be “pleasantly surprised.”

To conclude, I think the most noticeable impression I was left with after I had packed both scopes away – and it was much easier to pack away the Orion scope and Celestron mount, than the old Skywatcher and HEQ5 mount!, was the fact that the Orion scope had not given me the “wow” factor in the improved brightness that I was expecting.

End of Review.

Thank you for reading.

Regards,

philsail1.

[russ]

Very good review Phil. In practice the Hilux coating isn't really detectable. I was told it would add an extra aperture stop. In other words my 150 would have the same brightness as a Skywatcher 200. Sadly not the case. But the scope did perform wonderfully. And they are very light, so stress the mount less. I also found the Orion Focuser to be good once it had bedded in. Flt slightly notchy at first but after a few goes use it really smoothed out.

My own personal opinion is that there is very little difference optically between an Orion Optics 1/8th wave mirror with Hilux and a bog standard Skywatcher mirror. A seasoned expert maybe able to see the difference at the eyepiece but for the rest of us there is no difference.

I know this is very closely tied to another thread running about poor Orion Optics quality and will no doubt continue the debate. What's your own take Phil on the Orion Optics 'fit'n'finish'?

Russ

[mik]

Thats a very usefull review as i was thinking of the OO 150 f11 but with the information

given in this reveiw and the ongoing thread regarding OO quality it seems the Chinese are providing cheap alternatives to these premium setups, i know its not f11 but the 150pl from the skywatcher stable is looking like a good option and i can save £200 on the ota.

So Phil given your findings if you did't own these scopes and was going to purchase one of the 2 what one would you get ?

Mick.

[philsail1]

Thanks for your comments Rus and Mik.

Rus. I found the Fit & finish very good on the Orion Optics scope. Tube is light, yet strong. The tube rings are nice and wide (lined with felt) and grip the tube very well - yet allow it to be swivelled around within the rings. (Being a lighter tube that the Skywatcher, the tube doesn't work it's way down through the tube rings like the Skywatcher sometimes does when swivelled round). The main mirror's "9 point" support looks very solid. The plastic end caps on the tube look, and definately feel fllimsy. (Handle with care job!). Also, I was dissapointed with Orion's "Crayford" focuser. That single screw to lock an eyepiece into place is just not adequate, and allows an eyepiece to "wobble." It lets the whole focuser down in my opinion.

Mik. With regard to which 150mm scope to go for. Well, I have not looked through, and have no idea if the Orion 150 would be noticeably better than the Skywatcher, but on balance (and from my (and other's) experiences) of buying and owning three Skywatcher scopes, I would plump for the Skywatcher 150PL. The value for money (together with the technical specifications and build quality) you get with the Skywatcher brand, is in my opinion, the best value around. I bought the Orion 8" with the idea of selling the 8" Skywatcher, as it is a bit heavy to set up and manouvre around. The Orion is shorter, lighter and is on the face of it, a very nice looking scope. Technically, it had all what the Skywatcher has, and with an advertised (and recommended) much better mirror performance. Sadly, this has not been the case in practice. However, despite my dissapointment I would have still kept the Orion, for it does perform optically, very slightly (only very slightly though!) a bit better than the Skywatcher. However, the reason I will now keep the Skywatcher, is simply because I have a "Moonlight" Crayford fitted - and this is much better than the Orion's.

So, you will all see my Orion Optics 8" up for sale - and/or swaps within the next few days!

Regards,

philsail1

[mik]

Thanks Phil i think you answered the question very well there i think the 150pl ota for planetary and lunar will at under £100 will be a good compliment to my xlt150

Thanks Mick

[jakey]

An excellent review, very fair and without bias. I will also be selling my OO scopes and buying a 12 inch skywatcher

I now see no need ever to visit OO again.

[Astro_Baby]

Phil - can I ask what prompted you to buy the OO scope as its the same size as the SW one - was it just the lightness of the tube that was the issue ?

Second - why not use the Moonlite on the OO - wouldnt that give you the best outcome. The SW could be fitted with one of the cheap SW Crayfords for selling on.

It seems a shame to invest in the higher quality scope and then move it on.

I'm also a bit disappointed between this and the other thread. I kind of had an OO scope down as something to buy longer term because I just love precision stuff.

[brympton]

Phil,

Thank you for taking the time and effort to produce this review. This is bad news for me and I feel deep depression setting in . I have similar requirements (shorter tube length and lighter weight) but was also swayed by the supposedly superior optics. I really hope I will be in a position to disagree with some of your findings. My biggest fear is that this may not be the case especially as you have the SW to carry out a side by side comparison and I will be relying on memory. I really wish we could get a zygo report on the SW mirror even if ultimately the proof of the pudding is in the eating. I do hope you decide to give the OO another go before deciding which one to sell (clutching at straws here) maybe seeing conditions played a part in this. Isn't there anyone here that can come up with good OO review :crybaby:

[philsail1]

Mick. Yes, you have made a wise choice. One other aspect I forgot to mention before - especially with the mass produced telescopes (of which obviously the Skywatcher brand is one), is that when buying such a brand, I think it is very prudent to buy one from a reputable dealer, who will, if any problem does occur (due to a mass production fault), offer to rectify the fault without any hassle. As you might know, I bought my Skywatcher 8" from "FLO" and did have some trouble with the mount head. Steve (FLO) got it put right immediately. I think with any mass produced item, this aspect id very important.

Jakey - can I take it that you have experienced some problem(s) with Orion Optics equipment?

It's a shame really, because the scope I have is a good scope optically - collimation was spot on, and has remained so after moving the scope around the house, and putting it on and off its mount several times. Orion Otics just need to correct the single eyepiece locking screw issue on their focuser - which wouldn't be a major engineering project!, and they would have an excellent scope. The advertised excellence and "superiority" of their mirrors is another issue in itself, which I will take up with them when I send them a copy of my review (I did tell Barry from Orion that I was going to do a review - partly as a psycological ploy to ensure I really did get a top notch upgraded mirror (the complex set of figures and diagrams in the "Zygo" report I received with the scope, is meaningless to me - I got the "jist" of what it meant of course!).

Astro Baby. I originally was going to buy (at a cost of some £650) a 150mm Maksutov from Orion Optics. I had read some really glowing reports about the quality and excellence of its construction and mirror finish. However, after buying the TAL 100RS refractor from "FLO" and finding it gave very nice results, I changed my mind and went for the short tube (f4.5) 8" reflector as I thought it would be an excellent scope for "deep Sky" observing and photography. I had already had bought a couple of excellent eyepieces from Orion Optics, and had put down a deposit of £100 on the Maksutov. (I could have had this deposit returned). Again, I had heard some good reports on the "Europa" range of scopes that Orion manufacture, so I just transferred the deposit to the 8" Europa reflector and waited for them to custom make it for me. (I had a right angled finderscope instead of the stright through one, and an upgraded mirror (though this came free in their summer offer). I also went for the nine point main mirror support mechanism (as I had heard the tube was very light guage metal, and was afraid it might flex a bit). As I mentioned in my previous comments, the only reason I will sell the Orion is because I have the Moonlight focuser fitted. I really don't want to spend any more money on any scope for the time being (after spending over £500 already). I think that if anyone does take the Orion, it might be a good idea to have the existing focuser (which works as good as the Moonlight) drilled and tapped, to take another two eyepiece locking screws. This would cure the problem - which is not detrimental to the scope's use, but is just irritating, and leaves one constantly worrying about eyepieces falling out! (I do not think they would, but it's just a worry that's there every time I put an eyepiece in the focuser).

Regards,

philsail1

P.S. I'm desperate to post a photo of the two scopes set up together, but for the past few days my 6 year old little old "Dell Inspiron" laptop will not let me transfer any photos from "Picasa" to the hard disc for e-mailing. (I'm working on the problem!).

[philsail1]

Ah! Brympton, I've just posted a reply to other's queries and missed yours in the process!

Have you already purchased your Orion Scope? Even if you haven't, I'm sorry if my review has put you off somewhat.

Yes, I sunk into a bit of a low when I crept into bed at 2.00am on Saturday morning!. However, despite what it appears in my review, I am genuinely torn between which of the two scopes to let go, and will give my Orion Scope another go - when seeing conditions are better. However, realistically, I cannot imagine it will prove to be any better "per say," but I will give it a go. As I said earlier, the only reason I would let the Orion scope go, is for the fact that I fitted my Skywatcher with the Moonlite Focuser (oh, and I've flocked the tube too). If there is any glimmer of hope with the Orion, I will indeed keep it and (as Astro Baby suggests) think about doing something with its focuser - I wouldn't remove the Moonlight from the Skywatcher though, as it really enhances the scope no end! I would probably do as I suggested in a previous comment, get a local engineering company to drill and tap the Orion's focuser and fit a couple more eyepiece locking screws.

The review I gave, was my own honest opinion based on what I actually saw through the Orion and then made the direct and immediate comparison with the Skywatcher. The results were a little dissapointing - only for the fact that the Orion (tube only) had cost so much!

Regards,

philsail1

[A McEwan]

This is a really interesting comparison. Last year I treated my GSO 8" f6 mirrors to the Hilux treatment. I thought they deserved it as they seemed to already be giving very good, detailed views of planets and deep sky objects, and I had dismantled the scope anyway to repaint it. When I tested the telescope after receiving the mirrors back with the new coatings, I have to say I did notice an improvement in the brightness of objects viewed. It was hard to judge objectively of course bcause of the time delay, but I was (and am) sure that there was a detectable difference.

Of course the GSO mirrors may be different anyway from the SW ones used in this comparison, and I was testing from a dark sky site under very good to excellent seeing conditions. I wish I'd had the opportunity to do a side by side test like Philsail.

I also had a 150mm f8 Hilux Newt with 1/8w mirrors and compared that from time to time with my friend's Skywatcher 150 f8, and in that there was indeed a noticable difference in contrast and brightness - in favour of the OO.

That is only my personal experience of course. Thank you for posting this review.

Antony

[brympton]

Phil,

I think OO may take care of the focuser for you. This is an edited part of one of the many emails I have exchanged...

...At the same time we are adding a screw on adaptor with a brass locking ring with 3 locking

screws to achieve good locking and centricity to the draw tube. This has been done for a few customers in the past and we have been waiting for their reports coming back before adding them permanently to the OC1

Hope this helps a little.

Regards

Mark

[Astronut]

Could you see any subtle differences in detail in the objects viewed? The higher contrast views in the Skywatcher may not have been due solely to the flocking but the difference in magnification (because of the differing focal lengths of the mirrors) could also have played a small part. I think the flocking would have been the major factor here though.

I've heard that the difference visually between a 'standard' mirror set and an 1/8th wave (or better) mirror set will only be noticable (and then only slightly and the difference is subtle) under excellent seeing conditions which certainly isn't going to occur in my concrete backyard surrounded by houses. How much truth there is in that I really don't know. I guess it's one of those things you have to see for yourself.

[saturn5]

Excellent review.I have an old OO Europa150 F5,must be about 12y.o and have always been impressed by its optical performance,even with the "girder" supports of the secondary mirror and though it has a R&P focuser it is so smooth i have never considered fitting a crayford.

I also seem to have to collimate it a lot less than my Skywatcher 250 but i suppose you cant compare a 150 against a 250.

I remeber clearly when i had my first look at M42 through the OO and was astounded at the whispy detail of the nebula and if anything i would say that i get a better contrast through the OO in comparison to the SW but the reason for this could be the secodary mirror is positioned a lot further down the ota and if i got my finger out and bought a dew shield for the SW it would improve the contrast.

[nitram100]

Interesting review. I had the opportunity to compare my 10" F4.8 OO Europa standard optics with a Skywatcher 250 under very dark skies a few years back and my Europa delivered a much brighter image with much better contrast, it was clear that my mirror was of a higher standard.

In my opinion, to appreciate the difference in OO's mirrors, you really need to be under very dark skies, where you will definately notice the difference.

But when you live in the UK and do most of your observing from your backyard, is it worth the extra money?

[GazOC]

I've heard that the difference visually between a 'standard' mirror set and an 1/8th wave (or better) mirror set will only be noticable (and then only slightly and the difference is subtle) under excellent seeing conditions which certainly isn't going to occur in my concrete backyard surrounded by houses. How much truth there is in that I really don't know. I guess it's one of those things you have to see for yourself.

From what I've read the improvement anything better than 1/6th wave is hard to detect and better than 1/8 a lot harder again.

[philsail1]

Thanks for all your replies.

Re focuser. I'll try Orion optics "Brympton."

"Astronut" The differences I noticed were indeed very, very, very subtle!

Gaz O'c - I understand the differences in mirror quality might not be noticeable, but I would have thought the improvement in views should have been!

Regards,

philsail

P.S. here at last is a photo of the two scopes!

(click to enlarge)

As you can see, the Orion Scope only required one balance weight! (the same as my TAL100RS.

[GazOC]

This is referring to an old Sky and Telescope article:

"A few years ago optical gurus Terry Dickinson, Peter Ceravolo, and Doug George conducted an experiment in which Ceravolo made a set of 6" f/8 Newtonians, identical except for the wavefront error of their mirrors. Many observers were invited to try these, and were consistently able to spot the ones made to ½ wave or poorer, but only very experienced observers could detect the subtle differences between ¼ wave and 1/10 wave. Their conclusion was that most amateurs would be perfectly happy with the views from any scope that was an honest ¼ wavefront or better."

[philsail1]

Ah! Gaz O'C I understand.

It's easier to pick out poorer quality mirror than an expertly figured one?

But I would still query whether one could detect a definite difference between a 1/4 wave and 1/8th wave mirror?

I say this because even though the difference between my Skywatcher mirror and the upgraded Orion mirror appeared to be minimal, it was at least detectable.

I have been persuaded (by some SGL members) to give the Orion another go, which I will do. I've also send an e mail to Barry at Orion, asking about the mirror results, and the focuser issue.

I'll let you know how I get on.

Thanks for all your interest and replies.

Regards,

philsail1

[philsail1]

I received a reply from Orion Optics re the "First Light Report" and the single locking screw issue on fucuser tube. "John" from Orion Optics infrormed me that OO are addressing the focuser issue and has offered to exchange my focuser tube to the upgraded one (with two offset locking screws) for free!, so I'm off up to Crewe on Thursday morning (in a few hours time!) to do the swap.

He also said that I should see a significant improvement in the Orions performance when "seeing" conditions are better.

(I will "flock" the Orion in due course - before doing another comparison with the Skywatcher - which is already flocked). Perhaps flocking does indeed make a significant difference to a scopes performance, that we normally cannot quantify - until the opportunity to do a comparison with a similar sized scope comes along.

I post another review as soon as possible.

regards,

philsail1

[jakey]

"John" from Orion Optics infrormed me that OO are addressing the focuser issue and has offered to exchange my focuser tube to the upgraded one (with two offset locking screws) for free!, so I'm off up to Crewe on Thursday morning (in a few hours time!) to do the swap.

He also said that I should see a significant improvement in the Orions performance when "seeing" conditions are better.

(I will "flock" the Orion in due course - before doing another comparison with the Skywatcher - which is already flocked).

I post another review as soon as possible.

regards,

philsail1

For the price you should not have to accept any of the above.

[John]

Thanks for the review and further thoughts philsail1 - it's a very interesting and "topical" subject at the moment.

So far the performance of these 2 scopes has been very close - as you said, any differences being very subtle. I (like yourself) am quite suprised that the significantly higher cost invested the OO scope has not resulted in a definate performance edge for it, even allowing for the flocking that the Skywatcher OTA has.

The £300 price difference (OTA costs) would buy some very nice accessories !

John

John

[philsail1]

Went up to Orion, but unfortunately took the wrong "bit" of the focuser with me!

They have asked me to drop off the whole scope and they will remove existing focuser, and re-fit new one whilst I wait.

As part of my work involves me going to Crewe on a regular basis (twice each week would you believe!) I am going to take the scope in next Tuesday.

Oh! and they have also asked me to take in the main mirror from my Skywatcher 200mm and they will put it on the "Zygo" test rig and give me a PV wave report on it!

So, I'll take them up on the offer and let you all know what the PV wave is on a standard Skywatcher 200mm main mirror!

Watch this space!

Regards,

philsail1

P.S. We can bu try Jakey!

[russ]

"A few years ago optical gurus Terry Dickinson, Peter Ceravolo, and Doug George conducted an experiment in which Ceravolo made a set of 6" f/8 Newtonians, identical except for the wavefront error of their mirrors. Many observers were invited to try these, and were consistently able to spot the ones made to ½ wave or poorer, but only very experienced observers could detect the subtle differences between ¼ wave and 1/10 wave. Their conclusion was that most amateurs would be perfectly happy with the views from any scope that was an honest ¼ wavefront or better."

I've read that before and until earlier this year wasn't convinced. But having now owned the high quality 6" mirror and the standard 1/4wave job, i can safely say i couldn't really see any difference. That could well be because the observer is an idiot of course. But i would never go out of my way again to get that quality mirror. An honest 1/4 wave sounds good to me.

Russ

[philsail1]

Yes, one would think so John!

I'll give the both scopes another go - when I get the focuser exchanged.

Firstly, I'll try them both when "seeing" conditions are excellent (hows that for being optimistic!), and write a report.

Then I will flock the innards of the Orion, (as I'm now wondering if flocking does indeed "vastly" improve a scope's performance) and do another comparison. If the views through the Orion improve significantly, it will surely prove that flocking a scope is of real benefit - more so than a more finely "finished" mirror surface. (I cannot imagine this to prove the to be the case, but one never knows!).

I do hope the Orion Scope does show a significant improvement under clearer skies (as Barry from Orion says it definately will!), as I (understandably) will feel great disappointment it it doesn't.

Regards,

philsail1